A great speech! Well crafted, instructional, and inspirational.

Once again the GOP has sunk to a new low, a Republican member of Congress heckling in a presidential speech. Apparently civility and manners in the chambers of Congress no longer exist for the Republican party. Hatred trumps all.

Beautiful speech with equal measures of passion and toughness. I wish he had come out stronger for public option, but it was great to hear him push back against the right-wing lies and call for Democrats in Congress to move with or without the Republicans.

I just listened to Rachel Maddow replaying what the President said to us about the public option. He downplayed it, limited it to the uninsured, and said he was open to other idea. Sounds like the White House is endorsing the Baucus proposal.

I do not get it. Axelrod is now saying the Prez wants "competition and choice to markets that have none," so why not give a public option to everyone?

CNN does an instapoll http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/9/779482/-CNN-insta-poll-on-speech-reaction

Looks like Obama scored a home run, so says Andrew Sullivan and this poll:

"CNN just announced results of their polling of speech viewers.

Did Obama clearly state his health care goals? 72% Yes 26% No

What is your reaction to the speech? 56% Very positive 21% Somewhat positive 21% Negative

support for his plan" was "about" 53% before the speech and about 67% after."

Yes, it was a good presentation.

[Off-topic foreign policy stuff deleted. -editor.]

But thanks to the false Christianity of The Family we can not have either the health care of France or the UK.

Not easy for people to accept. The US has substituted a different version of Christianity for what is thought to be valid in most of the world. Chuck Grassley is an adherent to this brand of faith. He is among the chosen. Morality and law to not apply ...Greed Murder and devotion to evil are the highest values. Look at Lars. Rush. O'Reilly. And all their devotees who populate BO. Here they are merely called trolls.

So I was working and not able to watch the speech, though I will try to do that later. Did Obama come out for a public option or not?

Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are centrists?

"I just listened to Rachel Maddow replaying what the President said to us about the public option. He downplayed it, limited it to the uninsured, and said he was open to other idea. Sounds like the White House is endorsing the Baucus proposal."

Prior to tonite's speech, I heard the folks on the KPOJ morning show discussing who would be covered in any currently written health care bill, when it went into effect, and how many folks advocating for the public option knew the answers to those questions.

No, if there is going to be a robust public option, people are going to have to rise up and demand it themselves. I plan to be one of them and I hope that progressives here do also.

Solidarity.

You Lie!

Highlight of the night, since speaking truth to power is NEVER wrong or inappropriate.

Boats, congratulations, your direct line to Teabagger Central is obviously working well.

Wow, Boats and I agree. I loved it when he called the gibberish about the death panels a lie.

Since when has coarse incivility bothered leftists?

I love it when Obama says insurance companies will have 'an incentive to participate in the Exchange'.

Yeah they will be REQUIRED by law.

Great incentive, do it or else.

How 'bout instead of forcing consumers and insurors into a strait jacket, we allow them to work out what works best for them?

De-regulate.

Allow individuals to band together to buy group insurance and negotiate favorable rates just like large corporations do.

But without government interference.

Congressman Wilson made a very good speech, and no doubt will be punished severely for it.

Unless Obamacare specifically requires beneficiaries show proof of citizenship, (something he himself is loath to do), they will access it easily, even more so after Obama has his plan to issue driver's licenses to illegals passed by a compliant Congress.

De-regulate?! Is your side still spouting that nonsense?!

Have you all forgotten or are just plain ignorant of what the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did to cause the current recession that we are in?

Before Gramm_Leach-Bliley, Glass-Steagall prohibited bank holding companies from purchasing other banks including your local bank that gambled too much on NINJA (No Interest, No Job, and Assets) and ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) mortages leading to the calamity we are in.

Don't even make me mention Christopher Cox who ran the SEC like a good ole boys club where 'supposed' regulators okayed everything from Goldman Sachs and their ilk without overlooking their books. For that matter, Alan "I worship Ayn Rand" Greenspan is just as culpable for this mess due to his constant lowering of Fed interest rates and wholesale abandonment of the tried and true monetarist policy that Paul Volcker used to reign inflation in.

Last, but not least this so-called 'innovation' of bundling mortgages and securities together in financial product divisions of corporate banks provided us with the NINJA loans, adjustable rate mortgages and the like.

If your deregulation entails regulation as a good ole boys club where regulators are 'regulators' by title only, monetary policy is to give banks the lowest interest rates that they want, and short-sighted innovation is the rule of the day, then I don't know what would be considered proper regulation under your "de-regulation."

My guess is that proper regulation would not entail a third martini so that the 'regulator' could drive back to his office without getting a DUII.

The British House of commons has long been known for their rowdy behavior during speeches by others, including the Prime Minister. Tnight,a single republican representative brought that uncivil action to the combined House and senate of the United States. I do not think of this as a good thing.

Of course Obama knocked it out of the park in a speech. He always does best with well prepared statements. I shall carefully read and watch instead of relying on Maddow or push polls (or Fox News) to tell me what I heard.

I am fully supportive of meaningful reform.

Kari, You forgot to mention that Ron Wyden did an excellent job of listening to the speech.

"Congressman Wilson made a very good speech, and no doubt will be punished severely for it."

If he had done his WWF stunt during a normal House session, he'd be formally reprimanded. As it is, he showed the American public just how churlish the Republican Party has become.

RyanLeo wrote:

"De-regulate?! Is your side still spouting that nonsense?!"

What, specifically, is your problem with allowing individuals to band together to purchase group insurance and negotiate favorable rates for their group like big corporations do?

Is it that you think they are too stupid to do so and need government assistance?

Joe White,

I have nothing wrong with allowing individuals and small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance via health insurance exchanges. President Obama, you and I agree on that one.

However, it is not in the interest of health insurance rates for health insurance companies to do that. As it is, they make more money off of the current employer-based insurance system where they can use pre-existing conditions and cherry picking of healthy health consumers to make average individuals and small businesses pay three times the amount a moderate or larger sized organization would.

That being said, there will always be those who choose to uninsured, young 20 somethings such as myself who see health insurance as a necessity for others who are older, others who are more prone to illness and injury and families.

The Government is either going to have to legally compel me or give me a tax credit to buy something that I perceive as a drain on my disposable income.

Same goes for greedy small business owners who are too cheap to provide health insurance.

Joe White

The bottom line is the Health Insurance Carriers are in it for the money pure and simple. Money is their primary goal, insuring that those covered by their policies get good health care is at best a very distant second. Given a choice between two different ways to do something they will choose the one that provides the most profit. In fact by law they are obligated to choice the one that results in the highest profit.

The problem with deregulation and the proposal to permit the sale of health insurance across state lines is that the playing field is not level ( it is pushing vertical with the Insurance Company at the top), they do not need to sell health insurance in the way the consumer needs to buy it. There is no negotiation on the individual or small group level. You either choose one of the offered plans or you go without coverage. If you have a policy, come renewal time you either; agree to the new higher rate (typically 10 to 20% higher), agree to reduced coverage or go without. There is no negotiation.

Allowing the sale across state lines does not increase consumer options, it reduces them. Because once it is permitted the bulk of the health insurance companies will relocate to those states with the least regulation and oversight. Most consumers would be forced to contract with out of state carriers and when ever there is a disagreement between the covered party and the company it will be settled under that state’s laws and in that state’s court system. This is what happened with credit cards, South Dakota in an effort to create jobs rescinded is usury laws and adopted laws and regulation favorable to the credit card companies. The companies located there and now the high end of credit card rates is over 30%.

RyanLeo wrote:

"I have nothing wrong with allowing individuals and small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance via health insurance exchanges. President Obama, you and I agree on that one."

No, we don't.

I said nothing of a government run 'exchange'.

Individuals do not need the government to guide their purchases. Just need them to get out of the way.

Do you think people are too incompetent to purchase insurance without government guidance?

RyanLeo wrote:

"However, it is not in the interest of health insurance rates for health insurance companies to do that. As it is, they make more money off of the current employer-based insurance system where they can use pre-existing conditions and cherry picking of healthy health consumers to make average individuals and small businesses pay three times the amount a moderate or larger sized organization would."

Under most midsize and large employer plans , the employer 'self insures'.

That means that the 'insurance company' such as Aetna or UHC does not need to attempt to make money by reducing claims (i.e. cherry picking). They aren't paying the claims.

They (Aetna, UHC, etc) make their money by administrating the plan for the employer who is the one that collects the premium, pays the claims and keeps the extra.

David from Eugene wrote:

"Because once it is permitted the bulk of the health insurance companies will relocate to those states with the least regulation and oversight. Most consumers would be forced to contract with out of state carriers and when ever there is a disagreement between the covered party and the company it will be settled under that state’s laws and in that state’s court system."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance regulation works.

Your state Insurance Commissioner doesn't care where the insurance company's headquarters is.

He says, 'if you wanna sell insurance in this state, here's the rules'.

The problem with most insurance plans is that the employer 'self insures' and is exempt from most of the state laws that a real insurance company must abide by.

Joe White,

Just like how individuals such as Leland Stanford and Cornelius Vanderbilt did not need Government assistance in building the intercontinental railroad during the antebellum period right?

Talking to my conservative friends, it appears that the mindset that the Civil War was fought over had not died out at all, yet has evolved into something uglier.

What was once a division solidified over "state's rights," slavery in the territories, and "secession" has now evolved into an anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-Government, and socially conservative bloc aka the modern day Republican Party.

On the other hand, I believe that the Government under the construction of the intercontinental railroad, public works projects during the Great Depression and the inter-state highway system is a proven, awesome catalyst for progressive changes in society.

What separates you and I are fundamental philosophical differences concerning the Individual and Government.

I believe that Government has been instituted to protect those rights that were endowed upon us by our Creator (whatever name he may be called by). As such, the role of Government is to nourish and protect the individual from the savages that would be reaped upon him by those more fortunate in our current state of nature.

Call it Socialism or whatnot, I could hardly call it insult. I refer to being called a socialist the same as being called a butthead.

The vast majority of the U.S. population lives in urban and the surrounding metropolitan areas. That majority is the "mainstream."

Those living on the fringe outside of urban and metropolitan areas are just that, on the fringe.

Joe Asshole: people are NOT viewed as too incompetent. Gosh you are just angry at the world and take everything inside out and sideways so it fits your bitchy (broke my own rule!) distortions!

I can sure tell you that I, with a small allowance of brain cells, would surely like help in simplification. It is so often a welter, a confusion, and a sneaky little shellgame.

Try doing that with a stroke, the enormous fatigue of chronic pain or poverty. Try doing that with less than six months of good sleep and a massage.

Ever wonder how rural Oregon first got electric power? It was a program called Rural Electrification, and was passed with bipartisan support.

McNary Dam is named after a chief supporter of Rural Electrication, Salem's own Charles McNary. He was a US Senator for a very long time (Hatfield beat his record by something over a year but only because McNary died in office). McNary was the 1940 Republican VP nominee.

I worry some of these anti-government types would call him RINO because he would strike them as too much of a problem-solving centrist.

Sometimes this happens in politics. A fringe group develops (SDS & Weathermen on one side of the spectrum, John Birchers on the other side in the 1960s, for instance) and is very vocal, sometimes violent. But the majority (often 60%-80% ) supports neither. Nixon was wrong on many things but the Silent Majority concept was very wise on this topic---just wrong on how much patience they would have with him. Reportedly Tip O'Neill said he wuold campaign for any Congressman in either party who supported impeachment, and ended up in a rural state like Wyoming. He spoke very carefully about impeachment using prepared text, and found people in the audience, and found people nodding in agreement with what he said. "My gosh! This has been over for months and we didn't know it", he reportedly commented later.

If the anti-government folks were really as popular in the country as they would have people believe, the House and Senate wouldn't have such strong majorities of Democrats.

Fringe on any side of the spectrum tends to turn people off--either strongly as in people being activists/ contributing to candidates running against a fringe candidate or cause, or mildly but firmly. A college friend was in the latter category. Extremists BORE me, he said.

"We just need government to get out of our way"? Did you plow your own street last winter? Air travel has government subsidies ( FAA, NTSB, government security screeners, funding for building airports)---does that mean you never travel by air?

How is someone at a low wage job, or turned down for a "pre-existing condition" or some other bureaucratic nonsense suppose to buy insurance if only the government "got out of the way"?

Did the financial industry do really well when deregulated, or did we find out a year ago what could go wrong if the "free market" was left to their own devices?

RyanLeo,

I support fundamental reforms in health insurance.

These are practical steps that would make health insurance cheaper and more responsive to purchasers.

We do not need to dismantle the current system, but there are significant changes that should be made.

1. Employers who 'self insure' should be subject to the same state insurance regulations as a regular insurance company. If they wanna 'play insurance company', let them be treated as one. Cost to government=zero

2. Individuals should be able to band together (without government interference) to form groups and negotiate the purchase of group health insurance at rates like a large corporation receives. Cost to government=zero

3. The insurance industry should standardize all paperwork and forms voluntarily to cut the cost of administration by health care providers (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies). There is no reason why these providers should have to wade thru dozens of differently formatted forms for the same services thru different insurers. Cost to government=zero

4. In addition, health care providers should not be allowed to cost-shift(i.e. placing the burden of what Medicare and Medicaid won't pay on patients who self pay or use private insurance).

Persons who want insurance but can't afford it are usually already covered by Medicaid and persons who want insurance but have pre-existing conditions are usually able to get coverage thru the high risk pool in their state.

So what need is there to tear down the whole system and push everyone into a government monopoly?

There is none.

Joe White,

I agree with all of your common sense reforms. What I disagree with and what gets me and others heated, is this liberals use of derogatory terms.

I will wholeheartedly admit that I am guilty of name-calling and casting aspersions. I have done so and will do so in the future in response to posts that get me heated in the heat of the moment.

I expect the same of you and others. Honestly, if I could not take the heat then I would not place myself in the kitchen. I expect no apologies and do not easily give any apologies when I comment and respond on blogs.

As for healthcare reform, I see that both sides are angling for the same goal of opening up the entire U.S. nation to be one big insured pool.

Conservatives tend to believe that getting Government out of healthcare will open up an insurance market where every individual can choose among 10+ private plans nationwide.

Liberals tend to believe that the current monopolistic market (furthered by accredidation, state regulations, federal regulations, and Constitutional Rights) is best broken up via instituting a Government run Health Plan that everyone has to subscribe to. What they do not understand is that a viable Public Option would kill the health insurance industry because it would be financed first by user fees, second by taxes, third by employer mandates and finally by those who abandon private plans for it. Essentially, leaving us with a monopoly and monopolies whether it is Government or private has never been the best choice for the individual consumer.

Two very different avenues to achieve the same goal.

Personally, taking into account this political environment where the nation is appearing to have swung from a conservative mood from 1980 until 2008, I believe that dismantling all of this "Governmental" regulation would be a much more daunting task than instituting a Government run Health Plan.

Like you, I believe that as a Capitalistic nation individuals who can make the best choice without Government holding their hand all the way. Also, I believe that Government can be a leading man when absolutely needed (i.e. world war and economic depression), but seeing as how we are not in a world war or economic depression, the argument for Government intervention FDR style is hard.

So we are in a quandry where Democrat domination of the US Government precludes any common sense free market the lack of a true crisis makes a fundamental change in direction prohibitively difficult at the best.

I have to be a realist, Lucy high in the Sky with Diamonds dream bills may be passed in the House, but once they reach the more deliberative body (US Senate) where 60 votes are absolutely needed to override a filibuster, then fundamental change is impossible.

I believe in a water downed public option where it is not a golden cow such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and WIC. My views on it are more in line with the conservative Democrats because I believe that Government can be a damn good shepherd, but Government should not be the only shepherd one can look to.

Give me a public option with a sunset or ability to bankrupted and I would support it. For damn sure, I do not want another financially insolvent, entitlement program where folks expect it to meet their ever increasing needs regardless of what they put in.

You put in 20 years to Social Security then you should only get 20 years of it. Not a day more.

LT:

Ever wonder how rural Oregon first got electric power? It was a program called Rural Electrification, and was passed with bipartisan support.

Bob T:

But didn't that encourage more sprawl over farm and grazing lands? Wasn't being too far out from the power grid part of a price to pay (or advantage!) from being out in the country?

LT:

Did the financial industry do really well when deregulated, or did we find out a year ago what could go wrong if the "free market" was left to their own devices?

Bob T:

It wasn't "deregulated" at all.

Bob Tiernan Portland

LT:

Did the financial industry do really well when deregulated, or did we find out a year ago what could go wrong if the "free market" was left to their own devices?

Bob T:

It wasn't "deregulated" at all.

Bob is correct.

It was overregulation that caused the financial meltdown last year.

Banks were saddled with government quotas on writing subprime loans in specified zip codes.

<h2>This vote buying scheme by the Clintons brought us the subprime crisis of 2008. That and Chuckie Shumer causing a run on one of the largest banks in the nation last summer.</h2>